JUDGMENT K.C. Agarwal, J. This is a writ petition filed by the landlord, who were the petitioners in the writ petition for recalling the judgment of this court dated October 24, 1975. I have heard Sri S.P. Gupta, counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.M. Majid, counsel for the parties. It appears that after hearing counsel for the parties the mistake committed in the judgment dated October 24, 1975 is apparent and is liable to be set aside. The facts have already been stated in the said judgment. It is suffice to mention that the dispute is with regard to the fixation of rent. The building was admittedly constructed in 1940 and was let out to the respondent No. 3 in 1956. It is also common case of the parties that this building was assessed for the first time in the year 1960 under the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 and its annual rental value was determined. In accordance with the annual rental value determined in the said assessment year, the rent which was being paid by the petitioner was Rs. 191. On the enforcement of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 the petitioners filed an application for fixation of standard rent under Section 9 of the aforesaid Act. The application was contested by the respondent. The application was rejected by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the appeal filed by the petitioners was also dismissed. Hence the writ petition. The question that needs determination in this case is about the standard rent payable by the respondent No. 3. The word 'Standard rent' has been defined in Section 3(k). The clause relied upon by Sri S.P. Gupta, counsel for the petitioners, in support of his claim is Section 3(k) (1) (a). The said definition is as under: " (1) in the case of a building governed by the old Act and let out at any time of commencement of the new Act (a) where there is both an agreed rent payable therefore at such commencement as well as a reasonable annual rent which in this Act has the same meaning as in Section 2(f) of the old. Act, reproduced in the schedule, the agreed rent, or the reasonable annual rent plus 25 per cent thereon, whichever is greater." 39 He submitted that as the building in question was for the first time assessed in the year 1960, the reasonable annual rent in accordance with the definition of the said word given in old Act would be its Municipal assessment plus 25 per cent, thereon. In this way he asserted that the annual reasonable rent would be Rs. 23|75. He submitted that he would be entitled 25 per cent, thereon, in this way the rent payable to him is to have further of Rs. 2960 in accordance with Section 3 (k) (1) (a). The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners appears to be well founded. Clause (a) of Section 3 (k) (i) entitles him to get annual reasonable rent plus 25 per cent. As the annual rent was Rs. 23.75 n.p. adding 25 per cent, thereon, the total amount payable by the respondent No. 3 should be Rs. 29.68 n.p. Sri S.M. Majid, counsel for the respondent No. 3, contended that clause 3 (k) (i) (a) will not apply to the facts of the present case in as much as the said clause applies only to a building which has been let out at the time of the commencement of the old Act. The submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 is devoid of substance. The word 'this Act' does not refer to the old Act but refers to the 'new Act'. Therefore the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 that clause 3 (k) (i) (a) will not apply is untenable. Linked with the above the submission made was that the clause applicable to the present was Section 3 (k) (c) (ii). In my opinion the submission made by him has no merit. This clause begins with the word 'in any other case'. This obviously means that the said clause will apply only when an application made for enhancement for fixation of standard rent does not otherwise covered by the clause mentioned above. As such the application filed by the petitioners squarely falls within four corners of Section 3 (k) (i) (a). In view of the above the judgment of this court delivered on October 24, 1975 is recalled and the writ petition is allowed. As such the application filed by the petitioners squarely falls within four corners of Section 3 (k) (i) (a). In view of the above the judgment of this court delivered on October 24, 1975 is recalled and the writ petition is allowed. The petitioners are entitled to get Rs. 29168 as standard rent from the respondent No. 3 with effect from July 15, 1972. The petitioners will also be entitled to get costs of this petition from the respondent No. 3.